Method and apparatus for a verifiable on line rejection of an applicant for credit

ABSTRACT

A system and method are disclosed for presenting a reason for the rejection of 5 a credit application from an applicant is disclosed. The method includes obtaining a factor from a credit bureau identified as a factor that influences the FICO score assigned to the application by the credit bureau. The factor identified by the credit bureau is mapped to an internal rejection code. A rejection reason is provided that corresponds to the internal rejection code to the applicant.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.11/543,569, filed Oct. 5, 2006, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,505,939 which is acontinuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/386,390, now U.S.Pat. No. 7,143,063, filed Mar. 10, 2003, which is a continuation of U.S.patent application Ser. No. 09/185,878, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,567,791,filed Nov. 3, 1998, all of which are incorporated herein by referencefor all purposes.

TECHNICAL FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to methods and apparatuses forelectronic commerce. More specifically, the invention relates to methodsand apparatuses for evaluating the reason for rejecting a credit cardapplicant and supplying an appropriate reason for such rejection.

BACKGROUND

With the advent of electronic commerce on the Internet, applicants havebegun to expect decisions that have historically required a period ofdays or weeks to be made instantly when processed on line. Numeroustransactions such as purchases of consumer goods, airline tickets, andmovie tickets have been adapted for execution on line in a matter ofseconds. What has not been perfected is the ability to make a creditdecision and grant credit to a party on line in real time. (For thepurpose of this specification, “instant” or “real time” credit meanswithin a short period of time within less than about five minutes.) As aresult, virtually all Internet commerce to date requires some previouslysecured method of payment such as a credit card obtained by conventionalmeans or other previously arranged payment source such as a bank accountor electronic money.

Many credit card issuers provide applications on line that may be filledout by applicants. However, the underwriting decision for suchapplications is not made and communicated on line. If such a decisioncould be made on line and communicated to the applicant, it would beimportant for rejected applicants to communicate the rejection in amanner that is consistent with the legal requirements for rejectingcredit applicants.

When a credit card issuer rejects an applicant, there are specific legalrequirements for how that rejection must be made. These requirements areset forth in detail at 37 CFR 202 et seq. In addition to meeting thevarious legal requirements, it would be desirable to provide rejectedapplicants with a reason for rejection that makes sense to the rejectedapplicant for the purpose of increasing goodwill and decreasingincidence of complaints. Raw credit bureau data may provide certainfactors that were relevant to the determination of a FICO score for anapplicant. However, such factors often may not provide a reasonablebasis for rejection, since certain positive factors such as homeownership may be included for rejected applicants.

In addition, it would be desirable if a method could be developed forverifying that a rejected applicant has downloaded and viewed arejection message. If such a method could be developed with sufficientreliability to meet the legal requirements of rejecting an applicant,then it could potentially be possible to avoid the cost of having tosend a rejection notice letter to rejected applicants.

SUMMARY

Accordingly, the present invention provides a method of determining anappropriate reason for rejecting a credit applicant based on dataobtained from one or more credit reports. Important factors influencingthe applicant's FICO score are analyzed and inappropriate rejectionfactors are discarded. In addition, other attributes derived from theapplicant's credit report are analyzed and it is determined whether anyof those attributes are appropriate rejection factors.

It should be appreciated that the present invention can be implementedin numerous ways, including as a process, an apparatus, a system, adevice, a method, or a computer readable medium. Several inventiveembodiments are described below.

In one embodiment, a method of presenting a reason for the rejection ofa credit application from an applicant is disclosed. The method includesobtaining a factor from a credit bureau identified as influencing theFICO score assigned to the application by the credit bureau. The factoridentified by the credit bureau is mapped to an internal rejection code.A rejection reason that corresponds to the internal rejection code isprovided to the applicant.

These and other features and advantages of the present invention will bepresented in more detail in the following specification of the inventionand the accompanying figures, which illustrate by way of example theprinciples of the invention.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The present invention will be readily understood by the followingdetailed description in conjunction with the accompanying drawings,wherein like reference numerals designate like structural elements, andin which:

FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a preferred architecture for asystem that provides instant on-line credit card approval.

FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating an application data structurethat is used in one embodiment to store the data contained in anapplication and to keep track of the status of the application as itprogresses through the various modules described in FIG. 1.

FIG. 3 is a flow chart illustrating the general process flow through themodules of FIG. 1.

FIG. 4A is a flow chart illustrating a validation process that is usedin step according to one embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 4B is a flow chart illustrating a process for parsing an addressentered by an applicant.

FIG. 5 is a flow chart illustrating a pre-credit bureau test performedin one embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 6A is a flow chart illustrating a process for making anunderwriting decision using multiple credit reports.

FIG. 6B is a flow chart illustrating a process implemented on theUnderwriter for using credit bureau data to accept or reject anapplicant in one embodiment.

FIG. 6C is a flow chart illustrating a process for using the FICO scorecombined with other attributes to accept or reject an applicant.

FIG. 7 is a flow chart illustrating a process for checking the status ofan application and executing either an offer process or one of severalrejection processes.

FIG. 8A is a flow chart illustrating a process for determining anappropriate reason to display for rejecting an applicant and displayingthat reason.

FIG. 8B is a diagram illustrating one data structure used to map mainFICO factors provided by the credit bureau (referred to as externalcodes) to internal decline codes as well as reasons for rejection to beprovided to rejected applicants.

FIG. 9 is a flow chart illustrating how a rejection reason may beobtained.

FIG. 10A is a flowchart illustrating a process for providing a set ofmultiple offers to an applicant and receiving a balance transfer amountcorresponding to an

offer selected by the applicant.

FIG. 10B is a flow chart illustrating one such method of deriving acredit limit for an applicant based on the applicant's FICO score andincome, as well as the amount of total revolving balance that theapplicant elects to transfer.

FIG. 10C is a table used in one embodiment to set a credit limit basedon the balance transfer amount and FICO score.

FIG. 11 is another data representation illustrating another embodimentof how the offers may be determined based on FICO score, income range,income, and total revolving balance transfer.

FIG. 12 is a diagram illustrating a display provided to the applicantfor the purpose of presenting multiple offers to the applicant.

FIG. 13 is a flow chart illustrating a process for obtaining a real-timebalance transfer from an applicant.

FIG. 14 is a block diagram illustrating one computer network scheme thatmay be used to implement the system described herein.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EXEMPLARY EMBODIMENTS

In the following description, like numbers refer to like elements.

Reference will now be made in detail to the preferred embodiment of theinvention. An example of the preferred embodiment is illustrated in theaccompanying drawings. While the invention will be described inconjunction with that preferred embodiment, it will be understood thatit is not intended to limit the invention to one preferred embodiment.On the contrary, it is intended to cover alternatives, modifications,and equivalents as may be included within the spirit and scope of theinvention as defined by the appended claims. In the followingdescription, numerous specific details are set forth in order to providea thorough understanding of the present invention. The present inventionmay be practiced without some or all of these specific details. In otherinstances, well known process operations have not been described indetail in order not to unnecessarily obscure the present invention.

FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a preferred architecture 102 fora system that provides instant on-line credit card approval. As shown,an application engine 104 creates an application by prompting anapplicant for data and storing the entered data. In one embodiment, theapplication engine creates an application by communicating with theapplicant over the World Wide Web using Java, html or other commonlyused Internet protocols. In other embodiments, other types ofconnections may be established between the applicant and the applicationengine. The application includes applicant data such as the applicant'saddress and social security number. Once created, the application isreceived by the parsing engine 106 which parses an applicant's name andaddress and creates appropriate software objects.

The parsing engine 106 parses the data into an exact format that may beused to directly access credit bureau data. The applicant is given anopportunity to view how the data submitted has been parsed and to makecorrections to parsed data, if necessary. The parsing engine 106 isdescribed in further detail in FIG. 4B. The parsed data is passed to aValidator 108. Validator 108 validates certain data entered by theapplicant such as the social security number and zip code. Validationmay include checking either the form of a number to ensure that thecorrect number of digits have been entered or checking content such aschecking that the area code portion of a phone number is a valid areacode or checking that a zip code matches a city. If the data isdetermined to be valid, then the validated data is input to anUnderwriter 110. It is important to avoid sending invalid data to theUnderwriter to avoid the cost of requesting credit reports that cannotbe used.

Underwriter 110 receives data from the parsing engine and evaluates thedata to determine if the applicant should receive an offer for credit.In one embodiment, the Underwriter sends the parsed data to at least twocredit bureaus, receives data from the credit bureaus, and makes anunderwriting decision based on an analysis of the credit bureau data.The analysis may include, but is not limited to, comparing theapplicant's Fair Isaac Risk Score (FICO score) to certain thresholds.Underwriter 110 is described in further detail in FIGS. 6A and 6B. Ifthe Underwriter determines that an offer of credit should be extended tothe applicant, then an offer is made in real time to the applicant. Asis described below, the offer may include one or more sets ofalternative terms and those terms may be conditioned on the applicanttaking certain actions such as transferring balances. The applicant maybe required to actually take such actions in real time before an offerconditioned on such actions is confirmed. If the Underwriter determinesthat no offer of credit should be extended, then the Underwriterdetermines a reason for rejecting the applicant.

Whether an offer is extended and accepted or not, information about theoffer or the rejection is passed to a creditor module 112 that finalizesthe offer and builds a data file that is in the proper form to be sentto First Data Resources, Inc. (FDR), or another such entity thatprovides a similar service to FDRs service. During the finalization ofthe offer, FDR data is built for all approved and declined applications.FDR handles the embossing of the card and delivering it to approvedapplicants. FDR also handles sending rejection letters to rejectedapplicants.

If, at any time during the process, a system error occurs thatinterrupts the process, then an application object loader 114 loads theappropriate application for reentry into the system. It should be notedthat in one embodiment, the data that is processed and stored by eachmodule is stored as an application object as is described further inFIG. 2. In other embodiments, the data is stored in other ways, such asin a table or in a database.

FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating an application data structure 202that is used in one embodiment to store the data contained in anapplication and to keep track of the status of the application as itprogresses through the various modules described in FIG. 1. It should benoted that other data structures may be used in other embodiments withinthe scope of this invention. Application data structure 202 includes anapplication object 204 that is created by the application engine.Application object 204 points to a number of associated data structures,including an applicant object 206. Applicant object 206 stores applicantdata and includes one or more data elements 208. For example, anapplicant data element 208 may include information such as theapplicant's address, phone number, or social security number. Theapplication data structure also includes one or more test result objects210. Each test result object 210 stores a validation status 212associated with a validation test applied to the data associated withapplicant object 206. For example, a test result object may include asocial security number status indicating whether the social securitynumber entered by the applicant is a valid social security number. Also,a test result object 210 may include a zip code status indicatingwhether the zip code entered by the applicant matches the rest of theaddress entered by the applicant. Test result objects are used to checkwhether data entered by the applicant is valid before certain actionsare taken, such as a credit report being ordered.

The application data structure further includes a set of credit reportobjects 214 associated with each credit report ordered. In oneembodiment, the Underwriter requires at least two credit reports fromtwo of three credit bureaus before a decision to grant credit is made.This rule effectively enables a real time credit decision to be madewithout incurring an unacceptable amount of risk. Since credit reportsare preferably ordered from more than one credit bureau, the applicationdata structure will likely include several credit report objects. Eachcredit report object 214 includes a plurality of attributes 216. Anattribute is an item of data provided by the credit bureau in the creditreport. For example, one such attribute is a 90 day attribute thatindicates the number of times that the applicant has been more than 90days late in payment of a debt. Similarly, a 60 day attribute may beprovided. Other attributes may include a FICO score, the number of timesthe applicant has been severely delinquent, existence of a derogatorypublic record, whether the applicant is now delinquent, the applicant'stotal revolving balance, and the amount of time that a credit report hasbeen on file for the applicant (also referred to as “thickness of file”or “time on file.”

As is described below, in one embodiment, the Underwriter bases itsdecision on the FICO score alone when the FICO score is below arejection threshold. In some embodiments, there may be automaticapproval when the FICO score is above an approval threshold.

The application data structure further includes FDR data object 218associated with the application. FDR data is created by the creditormodule for the purpose of sending application information to FDR so thatFDR may send credit cards to successful applicants and send rejectionsto unsuccessful applicants, when that is required.

The application object also includes a status object 220. The status ofthe application object is determined at various times by the modules.For example, the Validator module may determine that the application isinvalid based on an invalid social security number or zip code. TheUnderwriter module may also determine that the application is aduplicate, as will be described below. The Underwriter may also changethe status of an application to accepted or declined. In addition,certain applications may be tagged with a fraud status flag indicatingthat there is a likelihood of fraud. The application data structure alsomay include a set of offers 222 to be provided to the applicant.

Thus far, the software architecture and data structure used to make areal time credit decision in one embodiment have been described. Next,the processes implemented in the modules will be described.

FIG. 3 is a flow chart illustrating the general process flow through themodules of FIG. 1. The process starts at 300. In a step 304, applicantdata is obtained via html, Java or other suitable network protocol. Itshould be noted that in different embodiments, the information enteredby the applicant may be either parsed first by the parsing engine orvalidated first by the Validator. For the purpose of illustrating thispoint, FIG. 3 shows Validation occurring first in a step 306. FIG. 1alternatively shows the parsing engine operating first. If theinformation is not valid, then control is transferred from a step 308 toa step 309 and the applicant is given an opportunity to edit the data.The Validator then rechecks the edited data.

If the information is valid, then control is transferred to a step 310where the data entered is displayed along with the field assigned toeach part of the data by the parsing engine. This step is important toensure that the data will be readable when it is sent to a credit bureauby the Underwriter an exact match is required by the credit bureaus forthe correct credit report to be sent. Various ambiguities in the waythat an address may be expressed can cause difficulties. Suchdifficulties have been a significant factor in preventing other systemsfrom allowing individuals to directly access credit bureau data. Forexample, it is necessary to distinguish a street direction that is partof a street address from a street name that happens to be a direction,such as “North.”

To make certain that such distinctions as well as other distinctions aremade correctly, the parsing engine categorizes each part of the enteredaddress and presents the field names along with that portion of theaddress that it has assigned to each field name. So, for example, theapplicant can move “North” from a street direction field to a streetname field if that is appropriate. Thus, by parsing the address andassigning the different parts to fields and then allowing the applicantto check and edit the assignment, the parsing engine enables applicantswith no knowledge of the Byzantine structure required by the creditbureaus to enter personal data in a manner that allows a credit reportto be obtained without human intervention.

Initial parsing is achieved by analyzing the form of the address anddividing, for example, the street number, street name, city and state.However, regardless of the care taken in designing initial parsing, somemiscategorization will likely occur. Displaying the parsing to theapplicant and allowing the applicant to correct parsing errors enablesthe imperfect output of the parsing engine to be corrected. At the sametime, the process is much more user friendly and less tedious for theuser than if the user had been asked to enter each field that theaddress is divided into by the parsing engine separately. By having theparsing engine parse the address and present the result of the parsingto the user, tedium is minimized and accuracy is achieved.

If the applicant responds that the data and parsing is correct insteadof editing the parsing of the data into the displayed fields in step310, then a step 311 transfers control to a step 312 where pre-creditbureau tests are run on the data. If the applicant edits the data, thencontrol is transferred back to step 306 and the data is re-checked forvalidity. If the applicant fails the pre-credit bureau test, then theapplicant's status is changed to rejected in a step 313 and if theapplicant passes the pre-credit bureau test, then the credit bureaus areaccessed and credit bureau tests based on the data obtained from thecredit bureau and other applicant data are performed in a step 314. Ifthe applicant passes the credit bureau tests, then post credit bureautests are run in a step 316. If the applicant passes the post creditbureau tests, then the applicant is accepted to receive an offer forcredit and the approval process ends at 320.

If the applicant fails the credit bureau tests, then the applicationstatus is changed to rejected in a step 315. As described below, an online rejection process is executed for applications with a rejectedstatus. Thus, the applicant information is input to a series of testsand the result of the tests determines whether the applicant is acceptedor rejected.

FIG. 4A is a flow chart illustrating a validation process that is usedin step 306 according to one embodiment of the invention. The Validatorperforms a plurality of validation tests on the applicant data. Theprocess starts at 400. In a step 402, the applicant's address isvalidated according to an address validation test. In one embodiment,address validation includes checking that a street number and streetname are entered and not a P0 Box. Next, in a step 404, a validationstatus associated with the address validation test is stored in a testresult object. In a step 406, the applicant's phone number is validatedaccording to a phone number validation test. The phone number validationtest may include checking the number versus one or more tables orchecking that an appropriate number of digits are provided. In a step408, a validation status associated with the phone number validationtest is stored in a test result object. Finally, in a step 410, theapplicant's social security number is validated according to a socialsecurity number validation test. In a step 412, a validation statusassociated with the social security number validation test is stored ina test result object and the process ends at 420.

In this manner, the form of the data entered by the applicant is checkedto determine whether the data entered is at least potentially correct.For example, if a social security number that does not exist for anyoneis entered, it can be determined that the entered data must be invalid.In other embodiments, additional validation tests may be performed.Specifically, validation tests that help detect fraud may beimplemented. In one embodiment, the validation status associated witheach test result object includes a time stamp. Multiple applicationswith the same or similar names may be tracked and a history may besaved. Fraud tests may be implemented that track the number ofapplications submitted by a given individual and check the consistencyof applicant data between multiple submitted applications.

FIG. 4B is a flow chart illustrating a process for parsing an addressentered by an applicant. The process starts at 450. In a step 452, theaddress is split into fields using a parser. Next, in a step 454, theparsing result is displayed. The applicant is prompted to indicatewhether or not the parsing result is correct in a step 456. If theresult is not correct, then control is transferred to a step 458 and theapplicant is allowed to change the fields assigned to each part of thedata. Once the parsing is approved by the applicant, control istransferred to a step 460 and the parsed data is sent to theUnderwriter. It should be noted that the data may also be sent throughthe Validator again if the data was changed by the user. The processends at 462.

FIG. 5 is a flow chart illustrating a pre-credit bureau test performedin step 312 in one embodiment of the invention. Pre-credit bureau testsare performed prior to obtaining one or more credit reports for theapplicant for the purpose of avoiding the expense of obtaining a creditreport for certain applicants who would not be approved regardless ofthe content of the credit report. For an example, an applicant could berejected based the applicant being of a minor age. In one embodiment,the pre-credit bureau test is performed by the Underwriter. In otherembodiments, the pre-credit bureau test may be performed by the parsingengine or a separate module. The process starts at 500. In a step 502,the applicant's income is obtained. Next, at step 504, it is determinedif the applicant's income exceeds an annual income criteria. If theapplicant does not meet the annual income criteria, the status of theapplication may be set to declined in a step 506. By way of example, ifthe income entered by the applicant is less than $15,000, the status ofthe application may be set to declined. In a step 508, the applicant'sage is obtained. In a step 510, the applicant is verified to meet aminimum age criteria. For example, the minimum age may be 18. If theapplicant fails to meet the minimum age criteria, the application statusmay similarly be set to declined in a step 512. It should be noted thatthe above description recites that age and income are checked inseparate steps. Alternatively, they may be checked together.

If the applicant meets the minimum age and income requirements, thencontrol is transferred to a step 514. Step 514 checks whether theapplication entered is a duplicate application. If the applicant haspreviously entered the information in the application database, then thecurrent application is a duplicate application. It is important torecognize such duplicate applications so that a single applicant cannotrequire multiple credit reports to be obtained. In one embodiment,duplicate applications are recognized by checking for duplicate socialsecurity numbers, duplicate names and/or duplicate addresses. In orderto be rejected by the system, an application must match two of the threecriteria. A rule is established that an applicant may reapply for acredit card after a specified time period has elapsed (e.g., 60 days).Such a rule is implemented in a step 516 that checks whether theapplication submission date exceeds a specified time period since thesubmission date of the found duplicate application. If the applicationis submitted prior to the specified time period, the status of theapplication is changed to duplicate in a step 518 and the process endsat 520.

When a duplicate application is submitted, then the applicant isnotified and a message is provided that informs the applicants thatduplicate applications may not be submitted within a certain time periodof each other. In addition, the applicant may also be prompted to go toa re-entry screen that allows the found duplicate application to beprocessed if processing of that application was previously interrupted.In this manner, if an applicant quit in the middle of the applicationprocess, then the application process can be completed for thepreviously submitted application.

It should be noted that a specific series of pre-credit bureau testshave been shown for the purpose of illustration. Other tests can be usedwithin the scope of this invention. Also, it should be noted that if onetest is failed, then remaining tests are skipped in some embodiments.Alternatively, all of the pre-credit bureau tests may be performed andthe pre-credit bureau test results may be stored in separate questionobjects. This may help detect potentially fraudulent applicants whocreate many duplicates. If an application is determined potentially tobe fraudulent, the status of the application is changed to fraud.Alternatively a separate flag may be set to indicate the potentialfraud.

Once it is determined the applicant has entered data that is at leastpotentially valid and the applicant has approved the output of theparsing engine, the application is ready to be checked by theUnderwriter to determine whether credit should be approved for theapplicant. The Underwriter makes such a determination based on theinformation obtained from credit bureaus. Since the decision made by theUnderwriter is made without human intervention, it is particularlyimportant that the method of determination made by the Underwriter isreliable. For this reason, it is preferred that, in order for anapplicant to be approved, at least two credit bureaus must provideinformation about that applicant that passes a series of tests. In someembodiments, this rule may be relaxed, but a process that requires datafrom at least two credit bureaus for approval has been shown to havesuperior reliability to processes without such a requirement. Inparticular, it has been determined that requiring data from at least twocredit bureaus for approval is an important factor in enabling the realtime credit approval system to make sufficiently reliabledeterminations.

Because at least two credit reports from two different credit bureausare required, it is possible that certain applicants may be rejectedbecause they are only included in the records of a single credit bureau.When this occurs, that reason for rejection is given to the applicantinstead of a reason based on the failure of the applicant to pass a testbased on credit bureau data.

FIG. 6A is a flow chart illustrating a process for making anunderwriting decision using multiple credit reports. The process startsat 600. In a step 602, a first credit bureau test is performed. Theprocess of performing a test on individual credit bureau data is furtherdescribed in FIG. 6B. If that test is failed, then the application isrejected in a step 604 and the process ends at 606. Immediatelyrejecting the application after a first failure saves the cost ofobtaining a second credit bureau report. If the first credit bureau testdoes not fail, either because no report is obtained or because the testis passed, then control is transferred to a step 608 and a second creditbureau test is performed. If that test is failed, then the applicationis rejected in step 604 and the process ends at 606. If the secondcredit bureau test does not fail, then it is determined in a step 612whether two credit bureau tests have been passed. If two tests have beenpassed, then the application is accepted in a step 614 and an offer isdetermined as described below.

If two credit bureau tests have not been passed, then control istransferred to a step 616 where it is determined whether one creditbureau test has been passed. If one credit bureau test has not beenpassed, then the application is rejected in a step 618 for not having arecord in at least two credit bureaus. The third credit bureau is notchecked since it is not possible to get at least two credit reports atthat point. If one credit bureau test has been passed, then a thirdcredit bureau is consulted in a step 620. If the third credit bureautest is failed, then the application is rejected in a step 622 and theprocess ends at 606. If the third credit bureau report does not have arecord for the applicant, then the application is rejected in step 618for not having enough credit records and the process ends at 606. If thethird credit bureau test is passed, then the application is accepted ina step 624 and the process ends at 606.

Thus, the Underwriter only accepts applications that pass at least twocredit bureau tests. It should be noted that a special reason forrejection may be given to applicants who are rejected because they donot have a record in at least two credit bureaus. Also, it should benoted that in some embodiments, it is distinguished whether a creditreport is not obtained because a credit bureau is temporarilyunavailable or whether a credit report is not obtained because there isno record for the applicant. In the event that a credit bureau isunavailable, an applicant that cannot be found in the remaining twocredit bureaus may be given a special rejection notice indicating that alater attempt should be made by the applicant when the unavailablecredit bureau is functioning. Also, when two credit bureaus areunavailable at the same time, all applicants may be requested to reapplywhen the credit bureaus return online.

FIG. 6B is a flow chart illustrating a process implemented on theUnderwriter for using credit bureau data to accept or reject anapplicant in one embodiment. The process starts at 650. In a step 652, acredit report is requested from the credit bureau. As described above,the credit report can be requested using data entered directly by theapplicant because the parsing engine classifies the data intoappropriate fields to be sent to the credit bureau. Once the report isreceived, the Underwriter performs tests on the data in the creditreport. Data entered by the applicant may be used for Underwriter testsas well. In a step 656, a set of attribute tests are performed using thecredit report. Attribute tests are general tests that may be applied toany credit report. Each attribute test corresponds to a generalattribute provided in the credit report. Attribute tests may includethreshold tests, which compare certain parameters such as a FICO scoreto a threshold, or logical tests, which check for the existence ofcertain adverse records. Next, in a step 658, a set of credit reportspecific tests are performed using the credit report. A set of creditreport specific tests may be defined for each credit bureau. Each creditreport specific test corresponds to data that is specific to aparticular credit bureau.

The credit bureau tests may be separately performed to avoid performingthe 10 remaining tests once the failure of the application to pass atest results in a determination that the application will be declined.However, each of the set of attribute tests and credit report specifictests are preferably performed so that the best basis for rejection maybe identified and provided to the applicant. Determining an appropriatebasis of rejection to display to the applicant is described furtherbelow in connection with FIG. 7. It is determined in a step 660 whetherthe applicant passed the credit tests and the application is rejected ina step 662 if the applicant failed the tests. If the applicant passesthe tests, that is noted in a step 664 for the purpose of determiningwhether the applicant should be accepted as described in FIG. 6A. Theprocess then ends at 670.

As described above, the process of performing the various tests maygenerally be considered as performing various attribute tests and creditspecific tests and combining the results of those tests in some fashionto make a decision to pass or fail an applicant.

FIG. 6C is a flow chart illustrating a process for using the FICO scorecombined with other attributes to accept or reject an applicant. Theprocess starts at 680. In a step 682, the FICO score is checked. If theFICO score is below a rejection threshold, then the application isrejected in a step 684. If the FICO score is above an acceptancethreshold, then control is transferred to a step 688 and otherattributes are checked. If any attribute tests are failed, then controlis transferred to step 688 by a step 690 and the application isrejected. If all attribute tests are passed, then control is transferredto a step 692 and the application is accepted. The process ends at 694.

It should be noted that in other embodiments, other methods ofdetermining 10 whether to accept or reject an applicant are used. Forexample, in one embodiment, an applicant is accepted automatically if heor she has a FICO score that is above a certain threshold.

The attribute tests performed in step 688 may take on various forms. Inone embodiment, a list of attributes is checked including attributessuch as whether the applicant is severely delinquent, currentlydelinquent, has a derogatory public record, or has been delinquent acertain number of times in a past period. A test may be defined for eachattribute such as a maximum number of times delinquent above which thetest is failed. In one embodiment, a list of tests is defined and all ofthe tests must be passed. In another embodiment, a list of tests isdefined and certain subsets of the list are also defined. At least onesubset must be passed for the applicant to pass.

Once the decision is made to accept or reject an applicant, the statusof the applicant is set to be accepted or rejected. Rejectedapplications are processed in the rejection process described in FIG. 7.Accepted applications are processed in an offer and confirmation processdescribed in FIG. 10A.

FIG. 7 is a flow chart illustrating a process for checking the status ofan application and executing either an offer process or one of severalrejection processes. The process starts at 700. In a step 702, thestatus of the application is checked based on the processing performedby the Underwriter. As mentioned above, the Underwriter determineswhether the application is a duplicate application, whether enoughcredit bureaus are available to provide sufficient credit reports toevaluate the application, and whether applications having sufficientcredit reports should be accepted or rejected.

If the status of the application determined by the Underwriter is thatthe application is a duplicate of a previously entered application, thencontrol is transferred to a step 706 and a message indicating that theapplication is a duplicate is displayed to the applicant. Next, in astep 708, a link to a reentry screen is provided to the applicant. Thereentry screen allows the applicant to execute a process that finds theearlier application and allows the applicant to review or resume theearlier application. For example, if the earlier application wasaccepted but the applicant did not accept an offer, then the process mayresume at that point and the applicant may be given another opportunityto accept. This is preferable to allowing the application process to berepeated from the beginning since that could needlessly cause a newcredit report to be obtained. After the reentry screen is displayed, theprocess ends at 720.

If the status of the application indicates that the application has beenaccepted, then control is transferred to a step 714 and an offer processis executed. The offer process is described in further detail in FIG.10. If the status of the application is that a credit bureau erroroccurred, then control is transferred to a step 710 and an error messageis displayed indicating that not enough credit bureaus are currentlyavailable to allow the application to be processed. Also, in a step 712,a link is provided to a site that allows the applicant to report theerror and request further information or request to be contacted. Afterthe offer process or the credit bureau error process is executed, theprocess ends at 720.

If the status of the application indicates that the application has beenrejected, then control is transferred to a step 704 and a rejectionprocess is executed. The rejection process is described in furtherdetail in FIG. 8A and FIG. 8B. Once the rejection process is executed,the process ends at 720.

FIG. 8A is a flow chart illustrating a process for determining anappropriate reason to display for rejecting an applicant and displayingthat reason. The process starts at 800. In a step 802, the main factorsgiven by the credit bureau that affect the FICO score are obtained.Generally, the main factors identified by the credit bureau for the FICOscore are provided in the form of a numerical code that corresponds to apredetermined factor. In a step 804, the credit bureau code is mapped toan internal code that is determined from a data structure that mapsbureau codes to internal factors. In one embodiment, the data structureis a table such as that illustrated in FIG. 8B.

Certain credit bureau codes that indicate positive factors that would beinappropriate bases for rejection such as home ownership are mapped bythe data structure to a general rejection reason such as “Applicantrejected based on FICO score” or “Applicant rejected based on creditbureau data.” Although such general reasons may be provided to theapplicant as a last resort, it is preferred that a more specific reasonbe given. To that end, a step 806 checks whether any of the FICO reasonshave been mapped to any specific rejection reasons. If all of the FICOreasons map only to the general reason, then control is transferred to astep 808.

In step 808, the rejection process begins to attempt to find a moreappropriate reason for rejection of the applicant. First, the results ofthe various attribute tests generated by the Underwriter are obtained.In a step 810, it is checked whether any of the attribute test resultsmap to an appropriate rejection reason. If an attribute test result mapsto an appropriate reason, then control is transferred to a step 812 andthe attribute reason is assigned as the reason given to the applicantupon rejection. If the attribute test does not map to an appropriatereason, then control is transferred to a step 816 and a general reasonis assigned as the reason given to the applicant upon rejection. If, instep 806, it was determined that one or more of the FICO score factorsidentified by the credit bureau correspond to an acceptable rejectionreason other than the general rejection reason, then that reason isassigned as the reason to be given to the applicant in a step 814.Whether or not a specific reason is identified by the above mentionedsteps, control is transferred to a step 818 where the reason isdisplayed to the applicant and the process then ends at 820.

FIG. 8B is a diagram illustrating one data structure used to map mainFICO factors provided by the credit bureau (referred to as externalcodes) to internal decline codes as well as reasons for rejection to beprovided to rejected applicants. It should be noted that although atable is shown, other data structures such as a linked list are used inother embodiments. Each external code maps to an internal code thatcorresponds to an internal reason for rejecting the applicant. Theactual reason is also stored for each internal code. As described above,certain external codes correspond to internal codes that provide only ageneral rejection reason. Other external codes are mapped to internalcodes that allow a specific rejection reason to be given.

Once an appropriate rejection reason is selected, it is necessary todisplay the reason to the applicant. In one embodiment, the reason isdisplayed on a web page along with an acknowledgement button that allowsthe applicant to acknowledge that he or she has read the rejectionmessage. FIG. 9 is a flow chart illustrating how a rejection reason maybe obtained. The process starts at 900. In a step 902, the reason forrejection is retrieved. Next, in a step 904, the rejection reason isdisplayed. In addition, in a step 906, a link to a credit counselingsite is also displayed. The acknowledgement button is displayed in astep 908. When the applicant leaves the rejection page, a step 910checks whether the acknowledgement button has been activated. If thebutton has been activated, then control is transferred to a step 912where the application is marked as having had an acknowledgement to arejection. If the acknowledgement button has not been activated, thencontrol is transferred to a step 914 and the application is marked asnot having had an acknowledgement to a rejection. The process ends at916.

It should be noted that other methods of verifying that a rejection hasbeen received are used in other embodiments. For example, in oneembodiment, an applet is sent along with the rejection that sends amessage back to the credit approval system when the rejection messagepage is completely downloaded by the applicant. In this manner, the factthat a rejection was delivered to the applicant can be verified withoutrequiring any action by the applicant.

Once the rejection has been sent and acknowledged or not, the rejectionor acknowledgement status may be provided to an entity such as FDR forthe purpose of generating hard copies of rejection letters and eithersending such hard copies as confirmations to all rejected applicants orelse, in some embodiments, only sending hard copies of rejection lettersto applicants that have not acknowledged an on line rejection.

Accepted applications have an accepted status and they also containimportant applicant information supplied by the applicant and obtainedfrom the credit bureau reports that can be used to design a customaccount level offer for the applicant. Preferably, multiple offers arepresented to the applicant, allowing the applicant to select an offerthat includes terms that the applicant desires to accept.

FIG. 10A is a flowchart illustrating a process for providing a set ofmultiple offers to an applicant and receiving a balance transfer amountcorresponding to an offer selected by the applicant. The process startsat 1000. In the step 1002, the application object is retrieved. Theapplication object includes the information provided by the applicant aswell as information obtained from credit bureaus and analyzed by theUnderwriter.

Next, in a step 1004, offer selection criteria are obtained from thecredit report object. In one embodiment, the offer selection criteriainclude FICO score, income and a balance transfer requirement. Offerselection criteria also may include data entered by the applicant. Theoffer selection criteria also may include other attributes such as timeon file. In general, the offer selection criteria are selected frominformation obtained from the applicant and from the credit bureaus forthe purpose of estimating the applicant's risk of default to determinean expectation of future loss as well as an expected future totalrevolving balance (TRB). In this manner, an appropriate offer may bedetermined. In one embodiment, the balance transfer requirement iscalculated as a selected percentage of the applicant's TRB. As describedbelow, different offer terms may be provided for different balancetransfer requirements. As noted above, in other embodiments, other datastructures than the application object are used to store thisinformation.

Next, in a step 1006, a set of offers is derived from the credit reportdata and other applicant information stored in the application object.In a step 1008, the set of offers is displayed. in one embodiment, theoffers are derived from the FICO score and income of the applicant,which determine the risk of default, and also from a balance transferamount specified in the offer. The balance transfer amount may bedetermined as a percentage of the total revolving balance that theapplicant has on all outstanding credit cards in the credit report forthe applicant. Both the credit limit offered to the applicant and theinterest rate offered to the applicant may vary according to the amountof the total revolving balance that the applicant chooses to transfer tothe new account.

In addition offers may present incentives such as frequent flier miles,cash back on purchases, or favorable interest rates.

In a step 1010, the system notes the selected offer and balance transferamount. Next, in a step 1012, the system obtains the balance transferamount from the applicant. Preferably, the balance transfer is actuallyexecuted while the applicant is on line. The process for obtaining andexecuting the balance transfer in real time on line is described furtherin FIG. 13. Once the balance transfer is executed, a data file isassembled for transmission to FDR for the purpose of issuing a creditcard in a step 1014. The process ends at 1016. Thus, the system derivesa set of offers based on information from the applicant's credit reportsand displays the set of offers to the applicant. The applicant then canselect an offer based on the amount of balance transfer that theapplicant wishes to make. Once the applicant selects an offer and abalance transfer amount, the system actually executes the balancetransfer by allowing the applicant to select the accounts from which totransfer balances. Once the balance transfer is executed, the datarelating the application is assembled and sent to FDR.

In different embodiments, the system uses different methods ofdetermining the terms of the offer extended to the applicant based onthe information derived from the credit report. FIG. 10B is a flow chartillustrating one such method of deriving a credit limit for an applicantbased on the applicant's FICO score and income, as well as the amount oftotal revolving balance that the applicant elects to transfer. Theprocess starts at 1020. In a step 1022, the system obtains applicantinformation and the credit bureau information. This information mayinclude the FICO score and income of the applicant. Next, applicantinformation and the credit bureau information are used to determine anexpected unit loss rate for the applicant in a step 1024. The unit lossrate corresponds to the probability that the applicant will default onthe credit line extended. That probability multiplied by the creditlimit extended to the applicant determines the dollar loss rate for thatapplicant. The dollar loss rate divided by the average total outstandingbalance of the account is the dollar charge off rate for the applicant.

In one embodiment it is desired that a dollar charge off rate be keptwithin a determined range for different applicants. To accomplish this,it is desirable to extend smaller amounts of credit to applicants with ahigher probability of defaulting. It is also useful to extend differentamounts of credit based on a total outstanding balance transferred bythe applicant since the balance transfer influences the likely futuretotal outstanding balance of the account. Conventional offer systemshave been able to extend offers to applicants with credit limits thatare controlled by the applicant's predicted average dollar loss.However, prior systems have not been able to extend credit and determinea credit limit based on a predicted total outstanding balance for theclient because they have failed to be able to present offers andcondition the acceptance of the offers in real-time on a balancetransfer made by the applicant.

Next, in a step 1026 the system determines one or more balance transferamounts based on the total revolving balance that the applicant has invarious other credit card accounts. In one embodiment, the balancetransfer amounts are calculated based on different percentages of thetotal revolving balance determined from all of the applicant's accountsfound in the credit report. Then, in a step 1028, the system calculatesfor each total balance transfer amount choice that will be presented tothe applicant, a predicted estimated revolving balance for the futurethat the applicant would be expected to maintain. The estimated totalrevolving balance may be equal to the balance transfer amount or may bea function of the balance transfer amount. In one embodiment, theestimated total revolving balance does not depend on the balancetransfer amount. In one embodiment, four possible percentages of theapplicant's total revolving balance as determined by the credit reportare presented to the applicant. Those choices are none of the balance,one-third of the balance, two-thirds of the balance, and the fullbalance. Depending on which of those amounts is selected by theapplicant, the system calculates a predicted total revolving balance forthe future. Then, in a step 1030, the credit limit for the applicant isset to achieve a target dollar charge off rate based on the amount ofthe total revolving balance that the applicant elects to transfer andthe risk of default. The process then ends at 1032.

The process described in FIG. 10B shows conceptually how a credit limitcould be determined based on an amount of balance transfer and a FICOscore and income. This process may be implemented directly in someembodiments. However, in other embodiments, it is preferred that a tablebe precalculated that includes amounts of credit limit that theapplicant will be given based on certain amounts of balance transfer andFICO score. Using such a table, the applicant's FICO score and balancetransfer amount may be looked up and then the credit limit may be foundin the corresponding cell. FIG. 10C is a table illustrating how this isaccomplished. Each row of the table corresponds to a different FICOscore, and each column of the table corresponds to a different balancetransfer amount. When the cell corresponding to the FICO score andbalance transfer amount is determined, the credit limit obtained. Acut-off line 1040 is also shown which represents an upper limit for abalance transfers for a given FICO score.

In the embodiment described above, separate tables are prepared forapplicants of different incomes. In addition, separate tables may alsobe prepared for applicants having other different characteristics suchas time on file for the applicant. It should be noted that the tabularrepresentation of the data is presented as an example only and the datamay be represented in many ways including in three-dimensional orfour-dimensional arrays, linked lists or other data representationsoptimized for a particular system. By allowing the account credit limitto be a function of FICO score, balance transfer, and income, a creditlimit may be selected for each individual account that enables thedollar charge off rate for all applicants to be controlled.

FIG. 11 is another data representation illustrating another embodimentof how the offers may be determined based on FICO score, income range,income, and total revolving balance transfer. A single table includes arange of FICO scores 1108, an income range 1110, a balance transfercolumn 1112, and four offer columns, 1114, 1116, 1118, and 1120. Each ofthe offer columns includes a link to a web page that describes the offerin more detail. Once the proper row of the table is found, multipleoffers may be displayed to the applicant by assembling the various linkseither in a single frame or in consecutive frames for the applicant toview and select an offer.

Another component of the offer granted to the applicant that may bevaried based on the balance transfer selected is a teaser rate or annualrate. A teaser rate is an interest rate that is temporarily extended tothe applicant either on the amount transferred or on the amounttransferred and purchases made for a certain period of time. The teaserrate is intended to incent the applicant to transfer a greater balanceto a new account. In one embodiment, the teaser rate is determined basedon the percentage of the applicant's total revolving balance that theapplicant elects to transfer. Thus, the amount transferred by theapplicant controls not only the applicant's credit limit but alsodetermines a teaser rate extended to the applicant.

FIG. 12 is a diagram illustrating a display provided to the applicantfor the purpose of presenting multiple offers to the applicant. Thedisplay includes a first offer 1204, a second offer 1206, a third offer1208, and a fourth offer 1210. For each offer, there is a column 1214corresponding to the initial teaser rate, a column 1216 corresponding tothe annual fee offer, a column 1218 corresponding to the credit limit,and a column 1220 corresponding to the required balance transfer forthat offer to be accepted. The applicant selects one of the offers fromthe table. As noted above, in one embodiment, the offers are provided aspart of a web page and the offers are presented using html. By selectingan offer, the applicant selects a link that indicates to the systemwhich offer is selected. Once an offer is selected, the process ofacquiring the required balance transfer in real-time from the applicantis executed. That process is described further in FIG. 13.

FIG. 13 is a flow chart illustrating a process for obtaining a real-timebalance transfer from an applicant. The process starts at 1300. In astep 1302, the system retrieves the accounts and balances that theapplicant has based on the credit report data obtained for theapplicant. Next, in a step 1304, the estimated balances for each of theaccounts that were retrieved in step 1302 are presented to the applicantand the accounts are identified. Identification of the accounts is asensitive issue because the specific account data for the applicant isconfidential and if the information is displayed to an unauthorizedperson, fraud could result. Therefore, in one embodiment, a partialaccount number that lists the account granting institution as well aspart of the account number for the account held by the applicant withthat institution is displayed. Generally, this information is sufficientfor the applicant to recognize the account, but is not enoughinformation to present a fraud risk.

It should be noted that in some embodiments, the accounts chosen fordisplay by the underwriter are selected in a manner to facilitate asimpler balance transfer. For example, the largest account balances maybe displayed first so that amounts may be efficiently transferred tomeet the required transfer. Also, a group of balances to transfer may bepresented to the applicant by highlighting certain accounts.

Next, the applicant is given an opportunity to indicate a balancetransfer by selecting one of the accounts and indicating the amount tobe transferred. It should be noted that the applicant in this mannerdoes not need to provide account information to execute a balancetransfer. If a transfer is indicated, control is transferred to a step1306 and the amount of the user balance transfer is obtained. Next, in astep 1307, it is determined whether the sum of the balance transfers isgreater than or equal to the required transfer amounts for the offerselected by the applicant. If the amount is not greater than or equal tothe required-transferred amount, then control is transferred back tostep 1304 and the applicant is given an opportunity to select furtherbalances to transfer. If the amount of the balance transfers is greaterthan or equal to a required transfer amount, then control is transferredto a step 1308 and the system requests final confirmation from theapplicant of the balance transfers. If it is determined in a step 1310that a confirmation of the balance transfer has been received, thencontrol is transferred to a step 1312 and the balance transfers areexecuted. The process ends at 1314.

If in step 1304, it is determined that the applicant has elected to exitthe balance transfer screen instead of indicating a balance transfer, orif it is determined in step 1310 that the applicant elects not toconfirm the balance transfer amounts selected, then control istransferred to a step 1316 and the applicant is returned to the offerselection screen so that the applicant will have an opportunity toselect another offer that either does not require a balance transfer orrequires less of a balance transfer. The process then ends at 1314.

FIG. 14 is a block diagram illustrating one computer network scheme thatmay be used to implement the system described herein. An applicant hostsystem 1402 is connected to the Internet 1404. The applicant host systemmay be a PC, a network computer, or any type of system that is able totransmit and receive information over the Internet. Also, in otherembodiments, a private network such as a LAN or WAN or a dedicatednetwork may be used by the applicant to communicate. A web server 1406is also connected to the Internet and communicates with the applicanthost system via the Internet to request receive applicant informationand to notify the applicant of the results of the approval process. Webserver 1406 in one 20 embodiment accesses a business logic server 1408that implements the various approval checking processes describedherein. It should be noted that in some embodiments, the web server andthe business logic server are implemented on a single computer systemwith one microprocessor. However, for the sake of efficiency, the systemimplemented as shown is often used with different servers dedicated tocommunicating with applicants and processing applicant data,respectively. The business logic server, wherever implemented, includesa communication line on which communication may be had with creditbureaus or other outside data sources. In some embodiments, an Internetconnection may be used for that purpose. Thus applicant data is obtainedby the business logic server either over the Internet either directly orthrough a Web server. Also, data may be obtained by the business logicserver from an applicant using a direct dial in connection or some othertype of network connection.

A system and method has been disclosed for generating an appropriaterejection reason to give to a rejected applicant for credit, displayingsuch a reason, and verifying that the applicant has viewed the reason.Software written to implement the system may be stored in some form ofcomputer-readable medium, such as memory or CD-ROM, or transmitted overa network via a carrier wave in the form of Java® applets, other formsof applets or servlets, and executed by a processor. The system may beimplemented on a PC or other general purpose computer known in thecomputer art.

It should be recognized that the system described may also be used forthe purpose of granting or rejecting credit to an applicant for thepurpose of making a single transaction. In such a system, a transactionis interrupted and the application for credit is made. Based on the realtime approval decision made, credit may or may not be granted for thepurpose of completing the transaction.

Although the foregoing invention has been described in some detail forpurposes of clarity of understanding, it will be apparent that certainchanges and modifications may be practiced within the scope of theappended claims. It should be noted that there are many alternative waysof implementing both the process and apparatus of the present invention.Accordingly, the present embodiments are to be considered asillustrative and not restrictive, and the invention is not to be limitedto the details given herein, but may be modified within the scope andequivalents of the appended claims.

1. A method of presenting a reason for the rejection of a creditapplication from an applicant comprising: electronically receiving froma credit bureau a factor identified as influencing the FICO scoreassigned to the credit application by the credit bureau; using acomputer processor to: map the factor identified by the credit bureau toan internal rejection code, wherein the internal rejection code to whichthe factor is mapped is a general code if the factor is an inappropriatebasis on which to reject the credit application, and is otherwise aspecific code; determine whether the internal rejection code correspondsto a specific code or a general code; and change the internal rejectioncode to correspond to a specific rejection reason if it is determinedthat the internal rejection code corresponds to a general code and thespecific rejection reason is available; and providing a rejection reasoncorresponding to the internal rejection code to the applicant.
 2. Amethod of presenting a reason for the rejection of a credit applicationas recited in claim 1 further comprising: if the internal rejection codecorresponds to a general code, checking a result of an attribute test todetermine whether the result corresponds to an appropriate rejectionreason; and if the attribute test result corresponds to an appropriaterejection reason, then changing the internal rejection code tocorrespond to the appropriate rejection reason.
 3. A method ofpresenting a reason for the rejection of a credit application as recitedin claim 2 further comprising: if the attribute test result does notcorrespond to an appropriate rejection reason, then allowing theinternal rejection code to remain a general code.
 4. A method ofpresenting a reason for the rejection of a credit application as recitedin claim 1 further including requesting from the applicant anacknowledgement of the rejection.
 5. A method of presenting a reason forthe rejection of a credit application as recited in claim 4 furtherincluding receiving an acknowledgement of the rejection 10 from theapplicant and noting that the acknowledgement was received.
 6. A methodof presenting a reason for the rejection of a credit application asrecited in claim 1 wherein providing a rejection reason corresponding tothe internal rejection code to the applicant further includes providingto the applicant a web page that includes the rejection reason.
 7. Amethod of presenting a reason for the rejection of a credit applicationas recited in claim 6 wherein providing a web page to the applicant thatincludes the rejection reason further includes providing anacknowledgement button to the applicant as part of the web page.
 8. Amethod of presenting a reason for the rejection of a credit applicationas recited in claim 6 wherein providing a web page to the applicant thatincludes the rejection reason further includes providing an applet thatcommunicates that the web page has been downloaded.
 9. A system forpresenting a reason for the rejection of a credit application from anapplicant comprising: a communication interface; and a processor coupledto the communication interface and configured to obtain electronicallyfrom a credit bureau a factor identified as influencing the FICO scoreassigned to the credit application by the credit bureau; map the factoridentified by the credit bureau to an internal rejection code, whereinthe internal rejection code to which the factor is mapped is a generalcode if the factor is an inappropriate basis on which to reject thecredit application, and is otherwise a specific code; determine whetherthe internal rejection code corresponds to a specific code or a generalcode; change the internal rejection code to correspond to a specificrejection reason if it is determined that the internal rejection codecorresponds to a general code and the specific rejection reason isavailable; and provide to the applicant via the communication interfacea rejection reason corresponding to the internal rejection code.
 10. Asystem as recited in claim 9, wherein the processor is furtherconfigured to check a result of an attribute test, if the internalrejection code corresponds to a general code, to determine whether theresult corresponds to an appropriate rejection reason.
 11. A system asrecited in claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured tochange the internal rejection code to correspond to the appropriaterejection reason if the attribute test result corresponds to anappropriate rejection reason.
 12. A system as recited in claim 10,wherein the processor is further configured to allow the internalrejection code to remain a general code if the attribute test result 10does not correspond to an appropriate rejection reason.
 13. A system asrecited in claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured torequest from the applicant an acknowledgement of the rejection.
 14. Asystem as recited in claim 13, wherein the processor is furtherconfigured to receive from the applicant an acknowledgement of therejection and note that the 15 acknowledgement was received.
 15. Asystem as recited in claim 9, wherein the processor is configured toprovide the rejection reason to the applicant at least in part byproviding to the applicant a web page that includes the rejectionreason.
 16. A system as recited in claim 15, wherein the web pageincludes an acknowledgement button.
 17. A system as recited in claim 15,wherein the processor is further configured to provide to the applicantan applet that communicates that the web page has been downloaded.
 18. Acomputer program product for presenting a reason for the rejection of acredit application from an applicant, the computer program product beingembodied in a computer readable medium and comprising computerinstructions for: obtaining from a credit bureau a factor identified asinfluencing the FICO score assigned to the credit application by thecredit bureau; mapping the factor identified by the credit bureau to aninternal rejection code, wherein the internal rejection code to whichthe factor is mapped is a general code if the factor is an inappropriatebasis on which to reject the credit application, and is otherwise aspecific code; determining whether the internal rejection codecorresponds to a specific code or a general code; changing the internalrejection code to correspond to a specific rejection reason if it isdetermined that the internal rejection code corresponds to a generalcode and the specific rejection reason is available; and providing arejection reason corresponding to the internal rejection code to theapplicant via a network.
 19. A computer program product as recited inclaim 18, further comprising computer instructions for providing to theapplicant a web page that includes the rejection reason.
 20. A computerprogram product as recited in claim 19, further comprising computerinstructions for providing to the applicant an applet that communicatesthat the web page has been downloaded.
 21. A computing system comprisingat least one computer readable memory and at least one processor, the atleast one computer readable memory storing instructions being read bythe at least one processor for executing a process for providing creditapprovals to on-line applicants communicating with the computing systemover a computer network, the process for providing credit approvalscomprising: receiving over the computer network data for a creditapplication of an applicant; electronically receiving from a creditbureau one or more of a plurality of predetermined factors influencingthe FICO score assigned to the applicant by the credit bureau; storingin the at least one memory a predetermined mapping of each of theplurality of predetermined factors to a decline code, each decline codehaving a predetermined rejection reason associated with it, eachpredetermined rejection reason being either a specific rejection reason,or if the factor is an inappropriate basis for a rejection, a generalrejection reason; determining whether to accept or to reject theapplication based on the FICO score and other information provided bythe applicant; if the application is accepted, notifying the applicant;if the application is rejected, mapping the one or more factors of theplurality of predetermined factors received from the credit bureau toone or more corresponding decline codes; and selecting a specificrejection reason corresponding to the one or more corresponding declinecodes, and otherwise selecting a general rejection reason correspondingto the one or more corresponding to the one or more correspondingdecline codes.
 22. The computer system of claim 21, further comprising,if the application is rejected, notifying the applicant of therejection, the notification including the selected rejection reason. 23.A computer readable medium for storing computer instructions, thecomputer readable medium storing computer instructions to be read by acomputing system for executing a process for providing credit approvalsto on-line applicants communicating with the computing system over acomputer network, the process for providing credit approvals comprising:receiving over the computer network data for a credit application of anapplicant; electronically receiving from a credit bureau one or more ofa plurality of predetermined factors influencing the FICO score assignedto the applicant by the credit bureau; storing a data structure incomputer readable memory, the data structure comprising a predeterminedmapping of each of the plurality of predetermined factors to a declinecode, each decline code having a predetermined rejection reasonassociated with it, each predetermined rejection reason being either aspecific rejection reason, or if the factor is an inappropriate basisfor a rejection, a general rejection reason, determining whether toaccept or to reject the application based on the FICO score and otherinformation provided by the applicant; if the application is accepted,notifying the applicant; if the application is rejected, mapping the oneor more factors of the plurality of predetermined factors received fromthe credit bureau to one or more corresponding decline codes; andselecting a specific rejection reason corresponding to the one or morecorresponding decline codes, and otherwise selecting a general rejectionreason corresponding to the one or more corresponding to the one or morecorresponding decline codes.